> It’s fine to put houses in places without water and that might even be better since there is a lower risk of flooding. Use the places with water to grow food, use aqueducts to carry water in a controlled fashion to places where people live.

This is so boneheaded I don't know where to begin. It is ok to put houses in places without water. It isn't okay to have too many houses in the desert. Entire towns and cities will be abandoned as this drought continues. Aqueducts won't solve that, nor will exporting unsustainable agriculture to other places where they will also run out of arable land/fertile topsoil given time with the exact same agricultural practices.

> New Orleans and basically all of Florida have tons of water. They are great examples of terrible places to build and we’re constantly subsidizing them to rebuild every year a hurricane rolls through.

This is sadly true. New Orleans has never recovered its population from before Katrina. Florida real estate is perpetually a deck of cards.

I think you might be looking at my comment in too much of a binary way. You also shouldn't build houses in places that regularly flood either.

We have more than enough land in hospitable places with abundant water, and no consistent flooding or other major disasters.

Our shortsightedness alone probably leads to more than enough waste to house and feed the entirety of the planet.

Moving huge amounts of people is of course a logistical nightmare, but it would have been much easier a few hundred years ago.

Anyway, none of this is realistic because we're humans. Our foolishness is an inherent trait. If we can survive ourselves, it'll be out of pure luck.